Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri Suhail Rehaman, claimed to be the absolute owner of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.177/5 (old No.177) measuring 0-35 ½ guntas situated at Lalithadripura village, Mysore District. He filed an application under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, seeking conversion of the land for non-agricultural purposes. The Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, issued an endorsement (order) dated nil, rejecting the application without providing any reasons. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the High Court of Karnataka under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement and a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to formally issue an order of conversion after collecting conversion fine under Section 95(7) of the Act. The High Court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel and the Additional Government Advocate for the respondents, observed that the impugned endorsement was not a speaking order as it did not contain any reasons for rejection. The court held that such an order cannot be sustained and set it aside. The matter was remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner with a direction to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition was allowed in part.
Headnote
A) Land Revenue - Conversion of Agricultural Land - Speaking Order - Section 95 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - The Deputy Commissioner issued an endorsement rejecting the petitioner's application for conversion of agricultural land without assigning any reasons. The High Court held that such an endorsement is not a speaking order and is liable to be quashed. The matter was remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Deputy Commissioner's endorsement rejecting the petitioner's application for conversion of agricultural land under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, without a speaking order, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition in part. The impugned endorsement/order dated nil issued by the Deputy Commissioner was quashed. The matter was remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Law Points
- Section 95 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act
- 1964
- Conversion of agricultural land
- Endorsement without speaking order
- Writ of certiorari
- Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (02) 22
Writ Petition No.461/2020 (KLR-CON)
Smt. B.V. Vidyulatha (for petitioner), Sri Y.D. Harsha (AGA for respondents)
State of Karnataka, Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, Tahasildhar, Mysore Taluk
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an endorsement/order rejecting conversion of agricultural land under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement/order issued by the Deputy Commissioner and a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to formally issue an order of conversion under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, by collecting conversion fine under Section 95(7).
Filing Reason
The Deputy Commissioner issued an endorsement rejecting the petitioner's application for conversion of agricultural land without assigning any reasons, which the petitioner contended was arbitrary and not a speaking order.
Issues
Whether the endorsement/order issued by the Deputy Commissioner rejecting the petitioner's conversion application under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, without reasons, is a valid speaking order.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the impugned endorsement is not a speaking order as it does not contain any reasons for rejection, and therefore is liable to be quashed.
Respondents did not make any specific submissions as the matter was heard at preliminary stage.
Ratio Decidendi
An order rejecting an application for conversion of land under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, must be a speaking order containing reasons. An endorsement without reasons is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed. The matter must be remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the applicant.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner who claims to be the absolute owner of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.177/5 ... is before this Court for a writ of certiorari to quash the Endorsement order dated nil issued by the Deputy Commissioner.
The impugned endorsement is not a speaking order. Therefore, the same cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned endorsement/order dated nil issued by the Deputy Commissioner is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed an application under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, for conversion of agricultural land. The Deputy Commissioner issued an endorsement dated nil rejecting the application without reasons. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964: 95, 95(7)
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
